She's Back......

[Harry]

As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..



It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..



It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..

My first wife's grandfather died in Dachau, and his wife and daughters were persecuted by the Nazis.



My current wife's father and his family endured six years of abuse at the hands of the Nazis.



A couple of members of my father's family died fighting Nazis.



Nazis leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Harry]

My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..

While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?

[Wazzzup]

My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..

While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?

Well that's right, neither one of them are for freedom of speech, why would we want to follow in their shoes?



Free speech, ignore it, rebut it, yell at it, whatever, but don't use the law to punish it, that's what tyrants do.  Punish action.

[RW]

My father was persecuted for his views, so government censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth..

While I think of it, just how averse to censorship do you think Nazis or Islamic extremists would be if they had their way?

Well that's right, neither one of them are for freedom of speech, why would we want to follow in their shoes?



Free speech, ignore it, rebut it, yell at it, whatever, but don't use the law to punish it, that's what tyrants do.  Punish action.

You keep saying this as if there are no consequences for speech, as if speech can't be an action.

[Anonymous]

As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..



It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..



It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.

Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.

[Wazzzup]

As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..



It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..



It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.

Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.

White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%.  Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people. In that same time period Muslim extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many.  which is the greater problem?  The answer is obvious.

[Harry]

White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%.  Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people In that time Muslims extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many.  which is the greater problem?  The answer is obvious.

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

[Wazzzup]

White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%.  Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people In that time Muslims extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many.  which is the greater problem?  The answer is obvious.

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Why take out 9-11? Did those muslims have their fingers crossed when they did it? some other reason?



(BTW even if you take out 9-11 the Muslim extremist number is still higher)

[Anonymous]

As long as they don't advocate jihad, yes..



It's not the views about women, gays and race of white nationalists and Islamists that's the problem..



It's calls for violence and that's a minority opinion in both camps.

Bad analogy. Those aryan nations types besides being a tiny, shrinking minority opinion are separatists. Islamists have heaps of sympathizers and want us dead.

White people in the US are 60 to 70% of the population, the Muslim population is about 1%.  Since the year 2000 white extremists have killed less than 60 people. In that same time period Muslim extremists have killed well over 3000. Over 50 times as many.  which is the greater problem?  The answer is obvious.

Islamists are a lot richer and better organized and growing.

[Anonymous]

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

When chronicling acts of terror, mainstream journalists often minimize jihadists and ignore left-wing extremists. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west: When there's an act of Islamic terror, some in the media will take great pains to minimize the threat. When there's an act of white-supremacist terror, many of the same folks will overhype the threat from the right, often making it out to be greater than the threat of jihadist terror. In either case, all too few will look past the political spin to recognize the truth: Violence is a problem at both extremes of the political spectrum, and jihadists are the most dangerous extremists of all.



Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.



Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?



Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.



Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public

[Anonymous]

Take out 9/11 and tell us how your numbers stack up.

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

When chronicling acts of terror, mainstream journalists often minimize jihadists and ignore left-wing extremists. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west: When there's an act of Islamic terror, some in the media will take great pains to minimize the threat. When there's an act of white-supremacist terror, many of the same folks will overhype the threat from the right, often making it out to be greater than the threat of jihadist terror. In either case, all too few will look past the political spin to recognize the truth: Violence is a problem at both extremes of the political spectrum, and jihadists are the most dangerous extremists of all.



Citing a Governmental Accountability Office study as authoritative, it claims that since 9/11 there were 85 "extremist" attacks that resulted in 225 deaths. "Far right" extremists were allegedly responsible for 62 attacks and 109 deaths, while jihadists killed 116 people in 23 attacks. It deliberately paints a picture of a nation where right-wing terrorists are more likely to strike and almost as likely to kill as jihadists. And what about left-wing attacks? Apparently, they don't exist.



Yet even when its foreign safe havens are under siege, even when America has an unprecedented level of resources directed at homeland security, and even when the Muslim population is a very small part of the American whole, jihadists still claim more lives than any other terrorist movement. Next, even the data about right-wing terror are a bit odd. For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the GAO lists are Dylann Roof's June 2015 Charleston church massacre and Christopher Harper-Mercer's shooting spree at Umpqua Community College. Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof's attack was unquestionably an act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO calls him a "white supremacist," but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion, was frustrated that he didn't have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly "far right" violence?



Moreover, the GAO report purports to chronicle "Violent Extremist Attacks in the United States That Resulted in Fatalities, September 12, 2001 to December 31, 2016," but it omits left-wing violence entirely. It paints domestic terror as exclusively right-wing or jihadist. Yet this is plainly wrong, and it doesn't take a government study to prove it. It just takes a normal memory and five minutes of research. The report does not include, for example, the following well-known incidents: Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley's politically motivated ambush killing of two New York City police officers on December 20, 2014. Micah Johnson's politically motivated ambush killing of five Dallas police officers on July 7, 2016. Black separatist Gavin Long's ambush killing of three police officers in Baton Rouge, La., on July 17, 2016. Those three incidents are far from the only cases of deadly leftist anti-police violence. In fact, an internal FBI report indicated that "an anti-police wave following the 2014 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., . . . drove most of those accused of killing law enforcement." In fact, in 2016 ambush killings of police hit a 20-year high.



Violent extremists left and right threaten American lives. Yet neither group is as dangerous as jihadist terrorists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ads-public">http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-how-media-misleads-public

They left out the Islamic inspired Orlando nightclub shooting that killed 49 people. How convenient.

[RW]

Source fail.

[Harry]

Islamics are far more likely to commit acts of terror in  the US. Any other spin is a  deliberate attempt to  mislead.

Look, terrorism is a terrible thing.  ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and their ilk are evil organisations that should be wiped off the face of the earth, and the individuals perpetrating or promoting hate and violence should be taken out of circulation.  Clear enough?



The issue I had with wazzzup's post was his selective use of data. He picked a specific time period to include the single greatest atrocity inflicted by Islamic terrorists and used that data to suggest that that scale of murder by a particular group of killers is the norm.  It isn't.



I also hold the view that the lives of all innocent victims of violence are equal.  Whether the perpetrator is an armed robber, a drive-by shooter, a white supremacist shooting up a church, a right winger blowing up an office building, or an Islamic extremist setting off a bomb, the victim's lives are just as precious and the perpetrators are just as evil.



9/11 was a dreadful thing.  About 3,000 people died.  It caused a 20% spike in total homicide deaths in that year.



The US has more than 14,500 homicides per year.  That's more than 240,000 deaths in the same 17 year period.  If you include 9/11, and every Islamic terrorist event that's happened on US soil since, Islamic extremists account for about 1.2% of the total.



However, if you look at total homicides on a year by year basis, or even a rolling three or five year basis, deaths from Islamic extremists account for a much lesser amount – between 0.1% and 0.3% of all homicides in any given period which excludes the on-off 9/11 event.



Given the US's general propensity for homicidal violence, including frequent school shootings and attacks on LEOs, wazzzup's post entirely lacked perspective.  Islamic extremism is a major problem, but the US has bigger issues in terms of violent crime.

[Anonymous]

Source fail.

Fuck off idiot.



Every time one of these articles crops up, a cursory glance at the source data it relies on reveals a myriad of flaws in its methods and therefore in its conclusions. It is highly likely that the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that "far-right terrorism" (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

•A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.

•A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)

•A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.

•A tally which misreports certain attacks as "right-wing" or "far-right".

•A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.

•A report which ignores foiled plots.

•A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamic terrorism.

•A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Muslim extremists in relation to their lack of prevalence as a minority group.

•A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the "far-right" bracket.

•A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

[Anonymous]

According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index published by Institute for Economics and Peace, only 2.6 percent of terror related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world's terror related deaths in 2015.



Meanwhile we have progtards regurgitating a total bullshit line from thinkprogress that in the US the far right kills seven times more people than jihadists.